Forewarned Is Forearmed

With Halloween having struck a dramatic finale to October, my students find themselves heading into the home stretch of the semester. Research papers will be due soon, followed by a breath-taking sprint to Finals after Thanksgiving break. Studies that began in the sultry heat of Summer and greeted the arrival of Fall's vivid foliage masterpiece will at last come to fruition in the growing darkness and nipping chill of Winter's onset in December.

Over the course of the semester, a few recurring themes and issues have come to dominate class discussions. In International Relations, America's waning influence in the international arena, a rising China and a declining dollar have been all the rage. This dovetails nicely with concerns over soaring budget deficits and an exploding national debt in my American Government class.

In International Relations, one of my previously blissfully uninformed students admits to having become an "alarmist". Meanwhile, in American Government the prospects for our children's and grandchildren's futures are bemoaned. The American Dream of a better life for our beloved progeny are darkened by ominously gathering fiscal and economic storms on the horizon. Having been buffeted by the howling winds of what many hoped to be a finally receding recession, there is a palpable fear that the clearing skies are nothing more than the eye of a far greater and more perilous storm than we originally imagined.

This unsettling realization, reverberating from my classroom across the heartland, is beginning to sink in to the nation's collective psyche with predictable results.

As Peggy Noonan so astutely notes, "The biggest long-term threat is that people are becoming and have become disheartened, that this condition is reaching critical mass.....Americans are starting to think the problems we are facing cannot be solved."

Yet, the objective in our discussions, both in class as well as on-line, is not to alarm or dishearten my students, or you, my faithful readers and fellow countrymen. To the contrary, the objective is to inform and enlighten. As the old aphorism goes, forewarned is forearmed.

One of the principals on which our republic is built is the idea that power is derived from the people, not from government. While the Second Amendment states that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State...", I would postulate that a well informed public is equally critical to the security of our free State.

To that end, I aim to secure our free State by forearming you with knowledge and whatever illumination and insights I may bring to it. As my students are well aware, my personal motto is "Knowledge is power". Accordingly, I hope to in some small way do my part to empower them and you.

At times our discussions will indeed alarm the previously blissfully unaware. On occasion, differences of opinion, interpretation and ideology will give way to impassioned and dogged debate. At times, that debate may become heated and unruly. Passions and blood pressures will run high and disparaging labels and insults will fly like poison arrows.

Yet, in the heat of battle, amidst the snakes and arrows, let's take a moment to remember a few things.

The road ahead will be challenging, difficult, at times despairingly daunting and potentially perilous.

In order to successfully navigate it, it will take all of our energies and efforts - Conservatives, Liberals, Libertarians, Democrats, Independents, Republicans and non-registered, taxpaying Joe Sixpacks alike.

We are indebted to our forebears whose labor and sacrifice paved the way for us and responsible to our posterity whose futures are rooted in our decisions and actions.

These challenges we face are indeed daunting, but no more so than those faced by a small band persecuted for their faith, sailing to an uncharted wilderness in search of religious freedom hundreds of years ago; or a rag tag group of patriots facing down the greatest empire on Earth in the quest for independence; or a tortured president paying the price in the blood of hundreds of thousands of his fellow countrymen as he struggled to preserve the republic itself; or a nation beset by Depression at home and the howling dogs of war abroad that confronted the now dwindling numbers of our "Greatest Generation".

As the Minutemen at the initiation of this great experiment we call American democracy responded to the alarm, the clarion now calls us to action. We must face it with a courage and will equal to that of our ancestors. To do any less would be a disservice to them, bring dishonor to ourselves and threaten the future of our cherished republic.

So let alarm give way to resolve, my friends. Let us embrace candor and rigorous debate, that the course we select will lead us, our posterity and the nation to that brighter future and the promise that her best days are ahead of us in the renewal of the American Dream.

Rest assured, faithful readers. It's out there on the horizon, if we have the courage, strength and discipline to seize it.

Stay tuned for further updates as events warrant and we see if the clouds give way to blue skies or grow darker still.

The President, the Comedian and the Journalists

The President wraps up his latest media tour-de-force tonight with an appearance on "The Late Show With David Letterman". While I personally believe it diminishes the Office of the President and it's attendant stature, I understand the rationale behind it.

Having lost control of the debate over health care reform, the President is looking to build on the momentum of his prime time address to Congress. In addition to this, Obama is trying to reach voters who pay only passing attention to the details behind the headlines that fleetingly catch their eyes in the midst of their hectic day. While they admittedly don't normally watch "Meet The Press", "This Week With George Stephanopoulos" or "State of the Union with John King", I still have to question the choice of the venue.

Will the President give in to temptation and do tonight's "Top 10 List" in an attempt to look cool and hip? No doubt it would be an instant YouTube hit and Letterman and his producers would love it. But is the cynical comedian and his audience really a forum conducive to the serious discussion of the restructuring of 1/6 of the American economy? Honestly?

Can Letterman control the involuntary reflex of his caustic tongue and resist the urge to use the President as his straight man? Will the segment be nothing more than the President chuckling and halfheartedly defending his opponent's freedom to express their difference of opinion even as the comedian mercilessly eviscerates? Will Paul Shaffer and the band punctuate the President's remarks with comedic stingers? Will Dave wander out into the audience to take questions for Obama? Will they be serious? While it will certainly be a ratings booster for Letterman, will it move public opinion on health care even fractionally?

One wonders if perhaps Jon Stewart and "The Daily Show" might be on the President's itinerary for his next barnstorming blitz through the great electronic frontier. He did win the show's target demographic handily, after all.

In addition to closing out this latest round of media carpet bombing with an appearance on a comedic talk show, what is most striking about the President's schedule is who was excluded - Fox News.

While Fox admittedly tilts to the Right in it's "fair and balanced" coverage, avoiding it is a tactical and strategic error for the White House. Did Fox refuse to carry the President's congressional address live? Yes. Is it the home of right wing firebrand du jour, Glenn Beck? Indeed, Roger Ailes and crew are responsible for propelling the mercurial Mormon into the ratings stratosphere. Has the network been a friend to the Tea Party movement and the opposition to the proposed health care reform? Undoubtedly. Nonetheless, rest assured Chris Wallace of "Fox News Sunday" is no Glenn Beck.

Wallace, a Peabody Award and three time Emmy winner, is a serious and respected journalist of the first order. Indeed, he along with Brit Hume are the champions of journalistic professionalism and integrity at Fox. Moreover, not only have Liberal stalwarts John Kerry, Howard Dean, John Edwards and Bill Clinton survived interviews with the 34-year media veteran, the President himself has done so as well as a candidate. While Wallace may be dogged in pursuing an answer, he is by no means offensive, disrespectful or belligerent.

Though the White House believes it is justified in snubbing Wallace and Fox, it has failed to seize the moment and demonstrate that "post-partisan" is more than a mere campaign buzzword. Instead of portraying the President as an unflappable leader who has the courage of his convictions, he has cast himself as little more than a petulant and petty politician. Furthermore, the President wasted a golden opportunity to unequivocally assure his opponents he respects their opinion and doesn't buy into Jimmy Carter's scornful belief that it is rooted in racism and not principal. Indeed, rather than stand in the political lion's den and bravely address the opposition, he has deemed them beneath him and unworthy of his attention.

So much for the lofty rhetoric about engaging in a comprehensive and serious national debate. Apparently that only applies to those who are sympathetic to the President's position and those who prefer softballs to hardball. Don't fret though, Chris Matthews. No doubt you'll still make the cut eventually based on the former criteria. Patience, lil camper, patience.

Following my Grandfather's admonishment to give credit where it's due, though, I must give George Stephanopoulos Bare Knuckled Kudos for his verbal jousting with the President over the definition of the word "tax". Not only did Stephanopoulos stand his ground, he forced Obama into a fiscally focused reprise of Bill Clinton's indignant defense of his definition of the words "sex" and "is". In the end, the usually cool Obama was left visibly irritated at having been backed into a rhetorical corner and reduced to a defense based solely on semantics.

Well played, George. You might forgo holding your breath waiting on that White House Christmas party invitation, though.

Now what exactly "is" a "tax" again, faithful readers?

Stay tuned for further updates as events warrant and we see what other gems lie hidden in the dog-eared pages of the President's political dictionary and voluminous thesaurus.

The President's Political Rorshach Test

In a moment of introspection and candor in his best-selling book "The Audacity of Hope", President Obama wrote, “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” As his freshman Summer of Discontent gives way to what may well be a Fall of Frustration, his words seem profoundly prophetic.

In a demonstration of keen political acumen, the President's campaign deftly transformed him into the embodiment of two of the most powerful and raw forces coursing through the electorate last year - hope and change. With Shepard Fairey's iconic "Hope" poster reinforced by images of throngs of adulating voters inspired by his oratory prowess, the dreams and aspirations of millions played across the "screen" that is Obama like a panoramic Cecil B. DeMille epic. Indeed, one can easily imagine Obama leading the faithful off on their journey to the promised land of milk and honey ala Charlton Heston in "The Ten Commandments".

In stark contrast to his ardent supporters, the President's detractors saw him in equally vivid and evocative terms - disingenuous, cynical and dangerous. Damning him as duplicitous, they feverishly decried his failure to be candid on the extent of the change he truly sought. With great wailing and gnashing of teeth, the Conservative Cassandras warned the change he brought was not to Washington, but rather to the nation beyond the Beltway. Once ensconced at the pinnacle of political power, he would use it to bend the nation to the will of the rising Liberal leviathan he would preside over. In their view, an Obama presidency was a clear and present danger to our very way of life.

Though reality certainly lies somewhere in the middle, seven months into his term with the election receding into history, the President has done little to dispel either view of him. Being demonized by as many as beatify him, the question is what is the reality behind the images projected on the presidential "screen"?

Referring to a pragmatism that teetered on vacillation, James Carville once drew a dot in an empty circle and asked of Bill Clinton, what's at the center? What did he truly believe in? In light of the President's comment, the same could just as readily be asked of Obama.

What principals underpin and inform his policies? What positions are sacrosanct and non-negotiable? Having waged a crusade for the White House, what political ground does he consider holy and inviolable? To date, there is passingly little one can base any reasonable answer on.

Pardon me, but was that the faint refrain of The Who's "The Real Me" I hear in the distance? "Can you see the real me, can you, can you?"

Having farmed out the stimulus package, cap and trade and health reform to Speaker Pelosi and the House Democratic leadership, the President has displayed an uncanny ability to delegate policy while appearing to be engaged. Essentially, Obama has become the Cheerleader-In-Chief for an agenda that plays to the loftiest hopes of his most ardent supporters while reinforcing the worst fears of his timorous detractors. The result, though, is a lack of substantive leadership from the White House.

That being the case, one wonders what set of circumstances would be of such import to compel the President to step forward, lay his principals and beliefs bare to the world and unequivocally lead the nation down the path he and not others has chosen to take. Until such time he will remain a soulless political mirror and a two dimensional caricature.

Then again, perhaps that's nothing more than the image I'm projecting on the screen, faithful readers.

Stay tuned for further updates as events warrant and we see what the next feature is in the President's political matinee.

In The Persian Bazaar - Beijing and Russia's Iran Policy

After Pyongyang's most recent nuclear test and the repeated provocations of it's numerous missile launches, we looked at the underlying issues behind China's reluctance to aggressively sanction their maddening neighbors in the Hermit Kingdom. Now with hardline President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad having been sworn in for a second term, many wonder if the United States and Iran will ever enter into serious dialogue over Tehran's burgeoning nuclear programs. Looking far afield for any potential leverage against Iran, not only does China once again come into play, but Russia enters America's strategic calculus as well. That being the case, the question is - what are the prospects - or lack thereof - for assistance with this sticky Persian wicket from our "dear friends" in Beijing and Moscow?

First, we must recognize that many, including the Chinese themselves, see China as an ascendant power with an increasingly influential role in the international system. With the world's third largest economy, foreign currency and treasury bond reserves well north of a trillion dollars and double-digit annual economic growth and military spending increases, there is little doubt the Chinese dragon has woken from it's self-imposed slumber and is roaring with a pride and self confidence unparalleled in the modern era. Concurrent to Beijing's rise, Moscow seeks to reestablish Russia's position of prominence among the leading ranks of states. In doing so, it hopes to once again bask in the fear, respect and influence the Bear commanded in it's former glory days when it confidently confronted America and it's allies at the height of the bipolar Cold War.

Though the dynamics of the international sphere are fluid, there is the fervent belief among many in the foreign policy intelligentsia in what can be referred to as the Spider Man axiom of international affairs- With great power comes great responsibility. In their minds, Beijing and Moscow have a responsibility as stakeholders and would-be leaders in the international system to assist in the maintenance of it's stability. Part and parcel of that entails working in concert with other leading powers to address threats to the system. Iran, the argument goes for varying reasons in both Liberal and Conservative circles, is just such a gathering threat.

Nonetheless, this begs the question - Why is it in Beijing and Moscow's strategic interests to maintain the stability of an international order constructed by and favoring the United States and it's allies? The answer is simple - it is not.

As is the case so often, one of the primary integers in China and Russia's strategic calculus in regards to Iran is economics. That being said, today we'll look at the economic factors underpinning their reluctance to take substantive action against the recalcitrant regime in Tehran.

Let's begin with China. Beijing, ever taking the long view and mindful of the need to keep it's economic engine well-fueled, views the oil fields of the Middle East as critical to it's national security. As part of a broader global initiative that combines low interest loans, massive infrastructure investment, exclusive access agreements, partnerships with local firms and governments, outright purchases of foreign energy fields and political protection in the international arena and the United Nation's Security Council, China has signed long term development and exclusivity deals with Iran for both oil and natural gas. Beijing places access to reliable sources of energy and the societal stability and politically legitimacy of the Communist Party that is directly linked to a growing economy ahead of America's desire to restrain a rising and potentially nuclear-armed Iran.

In addition to energy, arms also trade hands between China and Iran. For example, the Iranian side of the Persian Gulf is dotted with Chinese-manufactured sea-skimming Silkworm anti-ship missile batteries. In the event hostilities would occur between the US and Iran, odds are the Iranians would launch an aggressive anti-access/area denial offensive that incorporated Silkworm missile follies designed to overcome American close-in naval defenses. The objective would be to drive the Sixth Fleet from the Gulf, thereby limiting it's operational effectiveness and lethality. Should the tactic prove successful, China would reap the windfall profits of both Iranian resupply orders as well as purchases from other states seeking to keep the American navy at arm's length.

Furthermore, the trump card of Chinese held American securities, treasury bonds and currency reserves provides a greater sense of maneuverability and independence of action for Beijing. Accordingly, the Obama administration must be mindful that should it press it's counterparts in the Middle Kingdom too forcefully it places the stability and value of the dollar in jeopardy.

While many rightfully point out that dumping dollars would result in serious self-inflicted wounds for China, the Administration would be well-advised not to take solace in this thought. Given the proverbial alignment of the geopolitical stars with the corresponding concert of the right set of circumstances at the right time, Beijing may well calculate that the pain is worth the long term benefit of toppling the United States from it's lofty perch atop the international system. Though China may willfully cast itself into the heart of the maelstrom, the rationale would be the end of America's preeminence and the inauguration of an era of true multipolarity. Such an event would open the door for China to challenge for the role of regional hegemon, not an unappealing prospect for a nation that believes it fails to receive the respect, deference and influence it is due as one of the world's oldest cultures and civilizations.

Russia, like China, is also a supplier of arms to Iran. From T-72 tanks to MIG-29 fighters, Moscow has sold billions of dollars and hundreds of weapons systems to Tehran over the past two decades. A point of contention between the Pentagon and the Kremlin and of particular concern to both American and Israeli Air Force planners is Russia's agreement to provide Iran with the advanced TOR M-1 air defense missile system. Ostensibly reported to supplement air defense of the Russian-built nuclear reactor at Bushehr, the purchase is a $700 million deal. Accordingly, it is in Russia's economic interests to allow tensions between Washington and Tehran to remain unresolved - tension generates fear, fear spurs arms sales.

As noted previously, Russia has built the nuclear reactor at Bushehr. Seeking to sweeten the pot and retain Moscow's protection in the UN Security Council, Tehran has suggested Bushehr could be the first of up to two dozen potential Russian-built reactors in Iran. Contracts for such an ambitious program would run in the hundreds of billions of dollars and span decades. Needless to say, by comparison, the prospects for similarly profitable opportunities in the US are exceedingly slim.

Finally, there is the issue of natural gas. Seeking significantly enhanced influence over global markets, Moscow has proposed the creation of a producer's group similar to that of OPEC. The foundation of that group would be Russia, Iran and Qatar, who collectively control roughly 55 percent of the world's proven natural gas reserves. That being said, one can hardly expect Moscow to countenance the sanctioning of a crucial partner in what it perceives to be in it's long term economic interest.

While Americans may disparage Beijing and Moscow for cynically placing their own economic interests ahead of global security and stability, one should remain mindful of the fact that the European Union, and the Germans in particular, have similarly been loath to aggressively sanction Tehran for fear of losing lucrative contracts worth billions of Euros. Accordingly, serious observers should be neither shocked or offended when the Chinese and Russians laugh off what might otherwise be biting condemnations were it not for the actions of some of America's closest allies.

Penny for your thoughts, faithful readers? Or perhaps your security?

Stay tuned for further updates as events warrant and tune in Monday for a look at the strategic and geopolitical forces behind Beijing and Moscow's rebuffing of Washington's entreaties for assistance with Tehran.

The Hubbub Over Health Care

With the recent hand-wringing and flurry of activity over health care reform, including the President's fourth primetime news conference, it would be perfectly understandable if one found themselves quoting Bugs Bunny and asking, "What's all the hubbub, Bub?" The answer, the President's assurances to the contrary notwithstanding, is simplicity itself.

Wait for it....Wait for it......

Politics.

Yes, despite the jubilant choruses of kumbayah that rang from sea to shining sea on Inaugural Day, Washington is yet again in the steely grip of.....wait for it.....politics. Moreover....gasp....partisan politics.

"Hold on", you say. "Didn't the President promise us change? Didn't he assure us that, yes, we could?"

Indeed, he did. The problem, however, is there is one thing neither the President nor Congress can change no matter how much they'd like - time.

Time waits for no man, however historical or profound they may ultimately be. This rule applies to the President as much as it does you and I. And when it comes to the President and health care reform, time is most definitely not on his side. Why is that, you ask?

Again, the answer is....wait for it......politics.

The President, keenly aware of time's inexorable march, eagerly longs for a vote on the health care overhaul sooner rather than later - with Senate Majority leader Harry Reid's announcement that the upper house would not take up the bill prior to the August recess, it appears that vote will indeed be later. Nonetheless, among the political concerns that compel the President to anxiously watch the clock and calendar are....

- Fear of the ides of August. Though a soothsayer bade Julius Caesar to beware the ides of March, it is their August counterpart that haunts the Obama administration. By the month's midpoint, members of Congress will have been on their recess for two weeks. The White House dreads the probability that not only those first two weeks, but the whole month will be dominated by non-stop haranguing over the Byzantine reform bill at the hands of cantankerous constituents. With Democratic Blue Dogs in the House and fiscal Conservatives in the Senate already balking at the gargantuan costs and projected deficits the overhaul would trigger, the administration fears the weak-willed and faint of heart in both houses may succumb to the incessant barrage of criticism and consternation over the coming month. Contrary to what Speaker Pelosi has assured the White House, they believe not only does she not have the votes to pass it now, but come the end of the August recess, she may well have even fewer still.

- Mid-Term Mania and Re-Election Ramp Up. Learning from his previous experience in the Clinton administration, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel insists that the first year of an administration is critical in terms of passing it's policy agenda. He could not be more correct. Passing health care reform is a part of Obama's lofty agenda as well as a tangible and substantial accomplishment he can tout during the '12 campaign. Failing to do so will disappoint millions and leave a considerable chink in his political armor, but will most likely fail to be the political Waterloo that South Carolina Senator and would-be political oracle Jim DeMint prophesized. Nonetheless, for all intents and purposes, the end of the calendar year is the deadline for a comprehensive health care package till 2011, if not 2013.

Once Congress returns from it's end of the year holiday break in January, the focus will be on the upcoming mid-term election on November 2nd next year. Accordingly, raising campaign money and avoiding the ire of constituents will be the order of the day. Therefore, the odds of any significant legislation passing, much less one that impacts a sixth of the nation's economy, are exceedingly slim to say the least.

Moreover, there is mounting concern both on Capitol Hill and in the White House that the economy may continue to languish and remain stubbornly mired in recession. If that's the case, the focus will be on staving off a massacre of Congressional Democrats at the polls. Though many activists will insist that passing health reform is a vital part of the Party's defense, the more pragmatic and politically palatable course will be extending unemployment benefits in conjunction with a possible second stimulus package. Even this may face internal party opposition from the Blue Dog Coalition, leery of facing deficit-enraged voters in the fall.

A growing fear within the White House is that 21 months into his term on Election Day next year, the public will no longer be inclined to give the President and his party the benefit of the doubt at the polls. Should we remain in the grip of the economic doldrums, voters will view it as Obama's recession. That being the case, the odds are exceedingly high the electorate will vent their spleen and punish Obama and his fellow political travelers at the ballot box in the process. Not only does this have the potential to weaken the Democratic majority and empower the Republicans and their fiscally conservative Blue Dog allies in the House, there is the possibility of a political tsunami large enough to sweep the Grand Old Party back into power in Congress's lower house.

Even should the mid-term fail to return the Republicans to power in the House, the remainder of the President's term will be focused on shoring up his position for and conducting his 2012 re-election campaign. If the political waters run red with blood in the wake of next year's election, visions of Jimmy Carter and 1980 will dance like sugarplums in Republican heads. The problem with this, however, is two-fold.

First, Barack Obama is no Jimmy Carter. Obama is energetic, articulate and possessed of an almost zen-like political intuition. He is an ardent campaigner whose political legs remain strong and in running shape. Additionally, he will not reprise Carter's political impersonation of Mr. Rogers - no sweaters by the fireside and monotone monologues on malaise for this President.

Second, though Obama may emerge wounded from next year's mid-terms, Republicans still can't beat something with nothing. They need look back no farther than 1996 to see how a Democratic president can turn a mid-term massacre into a re-election victory. If they hope to regain the hallowed political ground of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, they must put up a worthy and credible candidate and not reprise the folly of Bob Dole's sacrificial candidacy. Obama and his political guru David Axelrod know this and will be prepared accordingly; Republicans would be well advised to do likewise. If not, they may find the tables have turned with an incumbent Obama slyly whistling the Rolling Stones' classic, "Time Is On My Side".

You're searching for good times, faithful readers. But just wait and see. You'll come running back.

Stay tuned for further updates as events warrant and we see if indeed the President won't have to worry no more.

America's $7 Trillion Hangover

According to CreditSights, a research firm in New York and London, the U.S. government has put itself on the hook for some $5 trillion, so far, in an attempt to arrest a collapse of the financial system. In addition to the $5 trillion identified by CreditSights, there are rumblings on the horizon of a growing storm of consumer credit card and college loan defaults. Some estimates place the potential amount between $1.5 and $2 trillion. Add to this the potential collapse of the commercial real estate sector that needs an estimated $800 billion in refinancing next year from what increasingly looks like a dry credit well. With the financial and banking sector unwilling to take the losses, the American taxpayer may well be placed on the hook for what is ultimately $7 to 8 trillion dollars over the course of just 24 months; that in addition to a National Debt that has continued to grow by an average of $3.95 billion a day since September, 2007. Rounded to $4 billion a day, the President’s proposed automakers bailout only amounts to four days worth of additional national debt. At that rate, why not go ahead and take Friday off? Maybe we’ll save an additional $4 billion?! I know, I know; it doesn’t work that way. But it’s a nice a thought, nonetheless. As of today, each citizen's share of the National Debt is $34,851.77. On average, Bare Knuckled readership runs at about 68 faithful readers and wandering souls a day. So, if all the Bare Knuckled faithful would be so kind as to send their checks off to the Treasury for their share this afternoon, collectively we could knock out our $2,404,772.10 share of the tab. On the other hand, were all my 361 Twitter friends and followers to fire off their checks to Washington today, we’d cover a none too shabby $12,581,488.97 worth of the bill. While I'm sure Hank Paulson would be oh so appreciative and inspired by our selfless act of noble citizenship, at a party that's running up a roughly $4 billion bar tab a day, that's not even a round of well shots, much less top shelf or my personal favorite, Jagermeister. As I told my American Government class recently, what is truly frightening is the increasing ease with which commentators, politicians and governmental officials use the term “trillions of dollars”. We're long past the fabled "a billion here, a billion there and pretty soon you're talking about real money." Make no mistake about it. This is GENERATIONAL debt we're talking about here. Debt that will outlive the political leaders, captains of industry and fallen financial titans responsible for it by decades and yes, generations. Despite this, Democrats in Congress and the President-elect have been tossing around $700 to $800 billion figures for a proposed fast-tracked stimulus package that would await his signature soon after his recitation of the Oath of Office. No doubt Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid will use the deepening recession as justification to move ahead with a universal health care program that conservative estimates indicate will add an additional $100 to $150 billion dollars to the annual budget deficit a year. With inflation, that's quickly headed towards tossing another $1.75 to $2 trillion on to the National Bar Tab over a decade. Then again, when you're running trillion dollar-plus deficits annually and toss on between $5 and $8 trillion in a single a year, what's another $100 billion between friends? The problem is no one's had the good sense to close the tab, much less give any serious thought as to how we're going pay it off. To hell with the hangover, this should instantly sober up every American from the halls of Congress to baby's lying in maternity wings with an instant $35,000 IOU attached to their birth certificates. I'm not fool or arrogant enough to think I have the answer that will magically get us out of the dire straits we currently find ourselves in. However, I would dare say a first step is to take a deep breath, calm down and look at the long term, generational impact of the decisions that are currently being considered by our leaders. Put the shot glass down, close the tab, step away from the bar, drink a pot of coffee, toss back some Tylenol and think this thing through. Failing that, we're going to drink ourselves to death and leave our children, grand children and great grand children to struggle to pay off the tab. Last call, faithful readers? Stay tuned for further updates as events warrant and the demon in the bottle seductively asks, "What harm can one more round do? Just one more round...."